Dataset Information

Infant rule learning: advantage language, or advantage speech?

ABSTRACT: Infants appear to learn abstract rule-like regularities (e.g., la la da follows an AAB pattern) more easily from speech than from a variety of other auditory and visual stimuli (Marcus et al., 2007). We test if that facilitation reflects a specialization to learn from speech alone, or from modality-independent communicative stimuli more generally, by measuring 7.5-month-old infants' ability to learn abstract rules from sign language-like gestures. Whereas infants appear to easily learn many different rules from speech, we found that with sign-like stimuli, and under circumstances comparable to those of Marcus et al. (1999), hearing infants were able to learn an ABB rule, but not an AAB rule. This is consistent with results of studies that demonstrate lower levels of infant rule learning from a variety of other non-speech stimuli, and we discuss implications for accounts of speech-facilitation.

SUBMITTER: Rabagliati H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3399874 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Infant rule learning: advantage language, or advantage speech?

Rabagliati Hugh H Senghas Ann A Johnson Scott S Marcus Gary F GF

PloS one 20120718 7

Infants appear to learn abstract rule-like regularities (e.g., la la da follows an AAB pattern) more easily from speech than from a variety of other auditory and visual stimuli (Marcus et al., 2007). We test if that facilitation reflects a specialization to learn from speech alone, or from modality-independent communicative stimuli more generally, by measuring 7.5-month-old infants' ability to learn abstract rules from sign language-like gestures. Whereas infants appear to easily learn many diff ...[more]

PMID: 22815756

Similar Datasets

Project description:A leading notion is that language skill acquisition declines between childhood and adulthood. While several lines of evidence indicate that declarative ("what", explicit) memory undergoes maturation, it is commonly assumed that procedural ("how-to", implicit) memory, in children, is well established. The language superiority of children has been ascribed to the childhood reliance on implicit learning. Here we show that when 8-year-olds, 12-year-olds and young adults were provided with an equivalent multi-session training experience in producing and judging an artificial morphological rule (AMR), adults were superior to children of both age groups and the 8-year-olds were the poorest learners in all task parameters including in those that were clearly implicit. The AMR consisted of phonological transformations of verbs expressing a semantic distinction: whether the preceding noun was animate or inanimate. No explicit instruction of the AMR was provided. The 8-year-olds, unlike most adults and 12-year-olds, failed to explicitly uncover the semantic aspect of the AMR and subsequently to generalize it accurately to novel items. However, all participants learned to apply the AMR to repeated items and to generalize its phonological patterns to novel items, attaining accurate and fluent production, and exhibiting key characteristics of procedural memory. Nevertheless, adults showed a clear advantage in learning implicit task aspects, and in their long-term retention. Thus, our findings support the notion of age-dependent maturation in the establishment of declarative but also of procedural memory in a complex language task. In line with recent reports of no childhood advantage in non-linguistic skill learning, we propose that under some learning conditions adults can effectively express their language skill acquisition potential. Altogether, the maturational effects in the acquisition of an implicit AMR do not support a simple notion of a language skill learning advantage in children.

Project description:Purpose Differences across language environments of prelingually deaf children who receive cochlear implants (CIs) may affect language acquisition; yet, whether mothers show individual differences in how they modify infant-directed (ID) compared with adult-directed (AD) speech has seldom been studied. This study assessed individual differences in how mothers realized speech modifications in ID register and whether these predicted differences in language outcomes for children with CIs. Method Participants were 36 dyads of mothers and their children aged 0;8-2;5 (years;months) at the time of CI implantation. Mothers' spontaneous speech was recorded in a lab setting in ID or AD conditions before ~15 months postimplantation. Mothers' speech samples were characterized for acoustic-phonetic and lexical properties established as canonical indices of ID speech to typically hearing infants, such as vowel space area differences, fundamental frequency variability, and speech rate. Children with CIs completed longitudinal administrations of one or more standardized language assessment instruments at variable intervals from 6 months to 9.5 years postimplantation. Standardized scores on assessments administered longitudinally were used to calculate linear regressions, which gave rise to predicted language scores for children at 2 years postimplantation and language growth over 2-year intervals. Results Mothers showed individual differences in how they modified speech in ID versus AD registers. Crucially, these individual differences significantly predicted differences in estimated language outcomes at 2 years postimplantation in children with CIs. Maternal speech variation in lexical quantity and vowel space area differences across ID and AD registers most frequently predicted estimates of language attainment in children with CIs, whereas prosodic differences played a minor role. Conclusion Results support that caregiver language behaviors play a substantial role in explaining variability in language attainment in children receiving CIs. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12560147.

Dataset Information

Infant rule learning: advantage language, or advantage speech?

Publications

Infant rule learning: advantage language, or advantage speech?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets